Thus it appears, that the common argument, grounded upon this passage, in favor of universal, and passive obedience, really overthrows itself, by proving too much, if it proves any thing at all; namely, that no civil officer is, in any case whatever, to be resisted, though acting in express contradiction to the design of his office; which no man, in his senses, ever did, or can assert.

If we calmly consider the nature of the thing itself, nothing can well be imagined more directly contrary to common sense, than to suppose that millions of people should be subjected to the arbitrary, precarious pleasure of one single man; (who has naturally no superiority over them in point of authority) so that their estates, and every thing that is valuable in life, and even their lives also, shall be absolutely at his disposal, if he happens to be wanton and capricious enough to demand them. What unprejudiced man can think, that God made ALL to be thus subservient to the lawless pleasure and frenzy of ONE, so that it shall always be a sin to resist him! Nothing but the most plain and express revelation from heaven could make a sober impartial man believe such a monstrous, unaccountable doctrine, and, indeed, the thing itself, appears so shocking--so out of all proportion, that it may be questioned, whether all the miracles that ever were wrought, could make it credible, that this doctrine really came from God. At present, there is not the least syllable in Scripture which gives any countenance to it. The hereditary, indefeasible, divine right of kings, and the doctrine of nonresistance which is built upon the supposition of such a right, are altogether as fabulous and chimerical, as transubstantiation; or any of the most absurd reveries of ancient or modern visionaries. These notions are fetched neither from divine revelation, nor human reason; and if they are derived from neither of those sources, it is not much matter from whence they come, or whither they go. Only it is a pity that such doctrines should be propagated in society, to raise factions and rebellions, as we see they have, in fact, been both in the last, and in the present, REIGN.

But then, if unlimited submission and passive obedience to the higher powers, in all possible cases, be not a duty, it will be asked, "HOW far are we obliged to submit? If we may innocently disobey and resist in some crises, why not in all? Where shall we stop? What is the measure of our duty? This doctrine tends to the total dissolution of civil government; and to introduce such scenes of wild anarchy and confusion, as are more fatal to society than the worst of tyranny."

After this manner, some men object; and, indeed, this is the most plausible thing that can be said in favor of such an absolute submission as they plead for. But the worst (or rather the best) of it, is, that there is very little strength or solidity in it. For similar difficulties may be raised with respect to almost every duty of natural and revealed religion.--To instance only in two, both of which are near akin, and indeed exactly parallel, to the case before us. It is unquestionably the duty of children to submit to their parents; and of servants, to their masters. But no one asserts, that it is their duty to obey, and submit to them, in all supposable cases; or universally a sin to resist them. Now does this tend to subvert the just authority of parents and masters? Or to introduce confusion and anarchy into private families? No. How then does the same principle tend to unhinge the government of that larger family, the body politic? We know, in general, that children and servants are obliged to obey their parents and masters respectively. We know also, with equal certainty, that they are not obliged to submit to them in all things, without exception; but may, in some cases, reasonably, and therefore innocently, resist them. These principles are acknowledged upon all hands, whatever difficulty there may be in fixing the exact limits of submission. Now there is at least as much difficulty in stating the measure of duty in these two cases, as in the case of rulers and subjects. So that this is really no objection, at least no reasonable one, against resistance to the higher powers: Or, if it is one, it will hold equally against resistance in the other cases mentioned.--It is indeed true, that turbulent, vicious-minded men, may take occasion from this principle, that their rulers may, in some cases, be lawfully resisted, to raise factions and disturbances in the state; and to make resistance where resistance is needless, and therefore, sinful. But is it not equally true, that children and servants of turbulent, vicious minds, may take occasion from this principle, that parents and masters may, in some cases be lawfully resisted, to resist when resistance is unnecessary, and therefore, criminal? Is the principle in either case false in itself, merely because it may be abused; and applied to legitimate disobedience and resistance in those instances, to which it ought not to be applied? According to this way of arguing, there will be no true principles in the world; for there are none but what may be wrested and perverted to serve bad purposes, either through the weakness or wickedness of men.ý

ý We may very safely assert these two things in general, without undermining government: One is, That no civil rulers are to be obeyed when they enjoin things that are inconsistent with the commands of God: All such disobedience is lawful and glorious; particularly, if persons refuse to comply with any legal establishment of religion, because it is a gross perversion and corruption (as to doctrine, worship and discipline) of a pure and divine religion, brought from heaven to earth by the Son of God, (the only King and Head of the Christian church) and propagated through the world by his inspired apostles. All commands running counter to the declared will of the supreme legislator of heaven and earth, are null and void: And therefore disobedience to them is a duty, not a crime. --Another thing that may be asserted with equal truth and safety, is, That no government is to be submitted to, at the expense of that which is the sole end of all government,--the common good and safety of society. Because, to submit in this case, if it should ever happen, would evidently be to set up the means as more valuable, and above, the end: than which there cannot be a greater solecism and contradiction. The only reason of the institution of civil government; and the only rational ground of submission to it, is the common safety and utility. If therefore, in any case, the common safety and utility would not be promoted by submission to government, but the contrary, there is no ground or motive for obedience and submission, but, for the contrary.

Whoever considers the nature of civil government must, indeed, be sensible that a great degree of implicit confidence, must unavoidably be placed in those that bear rule: this is implied in the very notion of authority's being originally a trust, committed by the people, to those who are vested with it, as all just and righteous authority is; all besides, is mere lawless force and usurpation; neither God nor nature, having given any man a right of dominion over any society, independently of that society's approbation, and consent to be governed by him--Now as all men are fallible, it cannot be supposed that the public affairs of any state, should be always administered in the best manner possible, even by persons of the greatest wisdom and integrity. Nor is it sufficient to legitimate disobedience to the higher powers that they are not so administered; or that they are, in some instances, very ill-managed; for upon this principle, it is scarcely supposeable that any government at all could be supported, or subsist. Such a principle manifestly tends to the dissolution of government: and to throw all things into confusion and anarchy.--But it is equally evident, upon the other hand, that those in authority may abuse their trust and power to such a degree, that neither the law of reason, nor of religion, requires, that any obedience or submission should be paid to them: but, on the contrary, that they should be totally discarded; and the authority which they were before vested with, transferred to others, who may exercise it more to those good purposes for which it is given.--Nor is this principle, that resistance to the higher powers, is, in some extraordinary cases, justifiable, so liable to abuse, as many persons seem to apprehend it. For although there will be always some petulant, querulous men, in every state--men of factious, turbulent and carping dispositions,--glad to lay hold of any trifle to justify and legitimate their caballing against their rulers, and other seditious practices; yet there are, comparatively speaking, but few men of this contemptible character. It does not appear but that mankind, in general, have a disposition to be as submissive and passive and tame under government as they ought to be.--Witness a great, if not the greatest, part of the known world, who are now groaning, but not murmuring, under the heavy yoke of tyranny! While those who govern, do it with any tolerable degree of moderation and justice, and, in any good measure act up to their office and character, by being public benefactors; the people will generally be easy and peaceable; and be rather inclined to flatter and adore, than to insult and resist, them. Nor was there ever any general complaint against any administration, which lasted long, but what there was good reason for. Till people find themselves greatly abused and oppressed by their governors, they are not apt to complain; and whenever they do, in fact, find themselves thus abused and oppressed, they must be stupid not to complain. To say that subjects in general are not proper judges when their governors oppress them, and play the tyrant; and when they defend their rights, administer justice impartially, and promote the public welfare, is as great treason as ever man uttered;--'tis treason,--not against one single man, but the state--against the whole body politic;--'tis treason against mankind;--'tis treason against common sense;--'tis treason against God. And this impious principle lays the foundation for justifying all the tyranny and oppression that ever any prince was guilty of. The people know for what end they set up, and maintain, their governors; and they are the proper judges when they execute their trust as they ought to do it;--when their prince exercises an equitable and paternal authority over them;--when from a prince and common father, he exalts himself into a tyrant--when from subjects and children, he degrades them into the class of slaves;--plunders them, makes them his prey, and unnaturally sports himself with their lives and fortunes.

A people, really oppressed to a great degree by their sovereign, cannot well be insensible when they are so oppressed. And such a people (if I may allude to an ancient fable) have, like the hesperian fruit, a DRAGON for their protector and guardian: Nor would they have any reason to mourn, if some HERCULES should appear to dispatch him--For a nation thus abused to arise unanimously, and to resist their prince, even to the dethroning him, is not criminal; but a reasonable way of indicating their liberties and just rights; it is making use of the means, and the only means, which God has put into their power, for mutual and self-defense. And it would be highly criminal in them, not to make use of this means. It would be stupid tameness, and unaccountable folly, for whole nations to suffer one unreasonable, ambitious and cruel man, to wanton and riot in their misery. And in such a case it would, of the two, be more rational to suppose, that they that did NOT resist, than that they who did, would receive to themselves damnation.

« Last Edit: November 20, 2008, 01:34:38 AM by reFORMer »

Logged

I went to church; but, the Church wasn't on the program! JESUS WANTS HIS BODY BACK!! MEET WITHOUT HUMAN HEADSHIP!!!

This is another "sermon" relevant to the necessity of resisting tyrants. It's too long to post here. Much of it is in defense of subjection to authority, a topic that is perhaps better known.

"On the Right to Rebel against Governors" - Samuel West, 1776One of the most influential citizens in Massachusetts during the founding era, Congregationalist minister Samuel West delivered this sermon before the Massachusetts Council and House of Representatives in Boston, 1776.http://www.lexrex.com/informed/otherdocuments/sermons/samwest.htm

I've been looking for something I came across while searching the web before voting. It had to do with early American understanding of the Revolution and the neccesity of resisting tyrants. The author should be known to those better acquainted with that period of history. Maybe they could locate something.

A point from what I read points out that (in Romans) lawful authority is a threat to evildoers. Authority that opresses those who would do good is therefore to be resisted.

Jesus was confronted with Pilate, not your average Moral Majority candidate. Did Jesus fight him?

What about the apostle Paul who was led to his death by the authorities? Did he fight against him?

Did not Jesus say "My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence" (John 18:36).

Our kingdom is not of this world either. Therefore we should not resist any authority, even if they intend on killing us.

"For our realm is inherent in the heavens, out of which we are awaiting a Saviour also, the Lord, Jesus Christ" (Phi 3:20).

Paul tells us to pray for all who are in authority so that we may lead a mild and quiet life in all devoutness and gravity (see 1 Tim.2:1-4). Fighting the superior authorities for supposed grievances is contrary to a mild and quiet life and contrary to devoutness and gravity.

Just because a minister in the 1700's you quote says it is O.K. to fight King Henry does not make it right biblically.

Tony

Logged

Just because God says He will save all mankinddoes not necessarily mean He won't.

Let me make use of this easy and familiar similitude to illustrate the point in hand--Suppose God requires a family of children, to obey their father and not to resist him; and enforces his command with this argument; that the superintendence and care and authority of a just and kind parent, will contribute to the happiness of the whole family; so that they ought to obey him for their own sakes more than for his: Suppose this parent at length runs distracted, and attempts, in his mad fit, to cut all his children's throats: Now, in this case, is not the reason before assigned, why these children should obey their parent while he continued of a sound mind, namely, their common good, a reason equally conclusive for disobeying and resisting him, since he is become delirious, and attempts their ruin? It makes no alteration in the argument, whether this parent, properly speaking, loses his reason; or does, while he retains his understanding, that which is as fatal in its consequences, as any thing he could do, were he really deprived of it. This similitude needs no formal application.

« Last Edit: November 20, 2008, 02:45:57 AM by reFORMer »

Logged

I went to church; but, the Church wasn't on the program! JESUS WANTS HIS BODY BACK!! MEET WITHOUT HUMAN HEADSHIP!!!

I very much agree with what you said Tony , But ReFormer has a point too Abraham was appointed to destroy enemies and slaughter of Kings ,and took nothing from them so he was not obliged to them and would know that whatever he had come from God only , that is a great example to me of how to be , , when someone gives you something you feel obliged to them and when it is enough ? there is no end to it

David was a man of war also alot of violence , he was made exaple of for us to learn from his experience , and what would make us think we could get away scott free either ? as Jesus said the kingdom did come by violence till John , when Jesus Come on the scene it was going to be by another way [righteousness of God would anyone enter the kingdom of God a stricter standard and one of sincere Love from the heart comitment to God being ,love God first and neighbour as your self ] even Paul would not speak against those in authority [govt rule] because of the New Way in Jesus Christ learning and doing it , though he pushed the old way when under the Law , ministration of death and gave his voice in the slaughter of the innocents I will say to Molly's post those innocent Jews slaughtered by the German authorities another example of dying and glorifying God as Jesus did in His innocence , God is the one who gives life , they are in a place now we only desire to be in total trust in God /Father ! and those men just death and sorrow and misery till they were delivered into the Fathers Hands Psa 31:5 Into thine hand I commit my spirit: thou hast redeemed me, O LORD God of truth.

Luk 23:46 And when Jesus had cried with a loud voice, he said, Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit: and having said thus, he gave up the ghost.

I think my reason for finding it so hard was my upbringing and the traditions of men. We heard, "stand firm in the faith and don't fall away" on Sunday morning, "eternal torment" on Sunday evening. Wednesday nights it was reinforced in youth group. I heard it over and over and over and that's all I could see when I read the Bible too. It was like total tunnel vision with eternal wrath just waiting to befall me should I sin.

Personally, I've been a spiritual follower most of my life, never caring much to lead, never thinking I understood anyway – which was correct. I never could latch on to it, though I tried. I listened to so many others who sounded like they knew. Pastor Henderson (my Pastor when I was a kid), what a kind and loving man, sure sounded like he knew. My youth group leader had it all down pat. The radio preachers sure sound like they know. They all talk like they know it for a fact. "If only I could be more sure like they are" I used to think. And, there's that word "forever" in my Bible. Surely if I question all of these knowledgeable people I must be questioning God Himself.

One day a couple of years ago we had quite a conversation after church about how all of those Catholics are going to hell trusting in their works. "Won't they be surprised when they find out it's not temporary" one man said. But, I had been listening to some Catholic radio shows and the host sure sounded like he knew. He spoke with authority and backed it all up with scripture.

Just one of the many factors that started my journey here. Now I find myself very skeptical of those who sound like they know. I read and listen and share a few things now and then, but when someone says, "I know..." instead of ,"I think..." my skeptic flag goes up.

I've shared my faith with some close family. My brother thinks there is a lot of merit to UR and said he always wondered about ET and how it could really be. My wife and I are having great discussions about it, though she's not there yet. I think she is close, though. My father-in-law finds it "interesting".

Now, whether all of this experience was God arranging every last thing or just those around me messing with my free will, I'll not go into. Just sharing my experience to answer why I think it was so hard for me.

I'm really glad to have you on this board DeeDee. I'm enjoying the great questions you have and the answers others provide.

Revelation 12:9And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him.

How good can satan look to us? Apparently, very good.

2 Corinthians 11:14And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light.

Thanks, Reformer. Paul was writing about a political subject in a time of unforgiving dictators, so he wrote very circumspectly, in hopes that people would apply their God given discernment to the subject. He wasn't addressing evil rulers, as the minister says. He was addressing good rulers. Let's read it again.

3Rulers are a threat to evil people, not to good people. There is no need to be afraid of the authorities. Just do right, and they will praise you for it. 4After all, they are God's servants, and it is their duty to help you.

Do we really think Paul meant to say that the Ceasar who was using Christians as human torches to light his parties was a good man, a helpful man, God's servant, and the Christians who were being burnt to a crisp were evil people? Is that what our God- given discernment tells us? If it does tell us this, we will walk down a road lit by burning people someday and not even flinch. Is this the great reign of Christ I have to look forward to?

3Rulers are a threat to evil people, not to good people. There is no need to be afraid of the authorities. Just do right, and they will praise you for it. 4After all, they are God's servants, and it is their duty to help you.

Now, Molly, remember! If the Scriptures say to do something that involves using your will, then tough luck because you don't have one. You have to ignore those Scriptures and just focus on God's Sovereignty. Or, if it be God's will, someday, you'll be able to be a doer of the Word and not a hearer only. But in the meantime, repentance isn't repentance without a bolt of lightning.

Martin, why are you so passive instead of pro-active? Let me give you a small history of Tentmaker Forums, every 3 years it is shut down because of constant influx of hyper-soveriegntists (the unbiblical view of God's Sovereignty which denies man's will), and ex-Calvinists. There is no such thing as 'passive' resistance to a lie because that only feeds the lie and justifies it, ban it like the serpentseed and mystic doctrine is banned and let us get some real healing in those who are truly seeking what is true.

(You're here Martin to love and be loved. You are a great comfort to me.)

The word is a two-edged (lit., two-mouthed) sWORD and it is the sSpirit's sWORD.

You suffer with poverty and illness. You hear teachings on the blessing of God Who you know is in your life. You get healed and get a wonderful job. A few years later you're so busy about many things. Convinced God wants you prosperous, you've become focused on monetary gain, spending your time at work and involved in the many pursuits you've taken up. The word of simplicity brings much needed change as you come apart to God, admitting that life doesn't consist of your abundance of possessions. The point of the two-sides is Jesus and you in His image.

At the time you are too self-centered or burdened with what look like your failures, then the Sovereignty of God is a healing balm. A few years later your carnal mind has used that truth to make you slacken. All things are lawful so you're drinking too much beer and neglecting the pursuit of God and His word. Then the truth of your own responsibility smites your heart and you turn to seek God anew. The point of the two-sides is Jesus and you in His image.

This is how I tend to view these kinds of things. We don't have a static sword over the mantel that wins no wars. We can sit in our armchairs and argue abstractions; but can we see the way to clear where none have gone before, or can we rise up to deliver those who are oppressed?

I also think that some problems arise due to mis-defined terms. What is often heard or meant by the term "free-will" is an uninfluenced will. The way the term is used in the O.T. translations it mostly means "voluntary," as a freewill offering distinguished from a required sacrifice. The sovereignty of God is heard as denying the existence of the human will. Actually sovereignty is above it and something, by it's very definition, nothing can be done about it. People have problems dealing with things they can't use.

As well, at least for me, I hold extremely divergent even contradictory views. I think this should be taught to all new believers. An example is the verse Luke 22.22: ". . . the Son of Mankind is indeed going, according as it has been specified. However, woe to that man through whom He is being given up!" In one breath two completely contradictory things were said by Jesus. God foreordained or specified ahead of time that Jesus would be betrayed; yet, Judas will be judged as responsible. Believers build a wall down the middle of our Saviors saying and throw bricks at each other from behind their side of the wall. While I'll not go into the Scriptural support here, I think that nothing exists but God. For some, God is the reason and being of their entire life. On the other hand, for some, no God exists. And beyond, in truth, God is nothing. He is so special He doesn't want you to know and understand Him and it is important for you to recognize this. If you have no knowledge of God you are a fool and dead in your sins.

« Last Edit: November 20, 2008, 08:21:41 AM by reFORMer »

Logged

I went to church; but, the Church wasn't on the program! JESUS WANTS HIS BODY BACK!! MEET WITHOUT HUMAN HEADSHIP!!!

It's not Sovereignty or Free Will any more than it's Heaven or Hell. It's all of it.

I think that's what I've been trying to say too, but it seems just a few of us want to take staunch opposing sides, i.e., extremes, then castigate those that don't see it exactly our way. What's up with this? Outright deceit is bad and needs to be confronted and I'll either join you or take the lead. On the other hand, differences of understanding WITHIN the respect of scripture can be dealt with and discussed, then move on...in love preferring one another.

IMO, much of the problems exist because one or two not only KNOW they're right, but they will then rudely INSIST they are right, proceeding to rip into anyone that doesn't bow to their POV. Then to make excuses for that behavior by saying "Jesus called people X,Y,Z..." Well, we're not Jesus, and He told us to love one another. I'm guilty at times of this, so the finger also points to me. Outright deceit, denying scripture, denying the very Lord that bought us is one thing. Not quite being to the point of complete same understanding on all matters is another...that's where denominations come from. Everybody starts their own little kingdom.

My take is, this is not only harmful to our brothers and sisters, but puts out a terrible witness to those that are in need of God's love...then they come here, and see believers ripping each other into shreds. My opinion is, if you can't discuss things in a reasonable, loving manner, move on to somewhere where you can be King and have everything exactly as you want it. This directs to myself. Lest anyone decide to deflect this by throwing it back at me, too late. I admit it. I do this sometimes. And when I do, I'm out of God's will and I need to repent of it...maybe even now. And if not this, then something else, because I'm a very flawed individual in need of forgiveness and prayers. However, IMO, I have seen NO ONE IN THIS THREAD say they don't have any responsibility for their sin. THERE ARE JUST SOME VARIATIONS OF UNDERSTANDING. I'VE HEARD NO ONE IN THIS ENTIRE DISCUSSION BE BLASPHEMOUS OR A WOLF IN SHEEP'S CLOTHING. WHY THEN SHOULD WE TREAT ANYONE AS IF THEY HAVE? I regret in a way saying this so openly, when it's really only one or two individuals that seem to constantly rip into people unnecessarily.

If Martin's "passive" in some manner, it's with his long-suffering, gentleness and patience with some our ridiculous, biased, and unnecessary attitudes and behaviors toward one another. God is helping me to personally [mostly be able to] refrain from arguing with, or even interacting with someone who seems to just want to fight or force others into their mold. Hopefully, God will continue to grant me the grace to ignore and turn the other cheek when it's a personal attack. But when it gets to this point to where it's so openly negatively affecting such a wonderful ministry as TM, then it's pretty hard to completely ignore.

If this doesn't fit you, then ignore it and bless you for your faithfulness. If it does fit you/me, then let's wear it and do something about it. The disunity of those/us trying to increase our understanding WITHIN the Word [NOT TRASH, DISCOUNT THE WORD] does something very real. IT HURTS PEOPLE.

It's not Sovereignty or Free Will any more than it's Heaven or Hell. It's all of it.

I think that's what I've been trying to say too, but it seems just a few of us want to take staunch opposing sides, i.e., extremes, then castigate those that don't see it exactly our way. What's up with this? Outright deceit is bad and needs to be confronted and I'll either join you or take the lead. On the other hand, differences of understanding WITHIN the respect of scripture can be dealt with and discussed, then move on...in love preferring one another.

James.

There is nobody taking any extreme side but the hyper-soveriegntist. I don't know what you think Free-will means, but none here have an extreme view of the will of mankind. The primary definition of Free-will, is the proper definition, the ability to make choices. Everyone who has problem with free-will have concentrated always on the falsely taught, second definition; a will without restraint. The only extremists are the ones that both Martin and myself keep addressing.

We can not move on in a thread where there is one who says we have no will, and another who says we do have a will, concerning our lives. That is the problem James. The moment a person denies that their will is pivotal in the life they live, there is nothing more you can do but commit suicide, because that is what it essentially comes down to. If they say there is no will, then why the heck are they even in this forum, and why do they take anything personally, and how can they even understand anything, because they are telling you and I, we don't exist but in the imagination of God.

Hyper-Sovereignty views is selfishness at it's core; it ignores Scripture where it says we must choose (a extension of our will) whom we serve, God or idols (self, money, etc.); it ignores words such as disobedience (can't be disobedient, if God made you that way because then you would be obedient), and repentance (can't repent if God made you that way because then you would nothing to repent of), and sin (can't sin if God made you that way, because then you would be in God's will). Etc. It is selfishness because it is escapism, and hedonism, it is not Christianity, or any form of godliness. Therefore, with all that, when they say the 'love', you cannot trust it because they are sociopathic and are only telling you what you want to hear, and only treating you the way you want to be treated (yes, sounds good except if you are in sin and need of correction) and Scripture says we are to save one another, pulling each other out of the fire, reproofing, correcting, preaching in season and out, and turning a man from his sin. Love does not tolerate evil, but rejoices in the truth. So, when these men say they act in love but let you continue down the road of destruction because "it is God's will", they are lying to you.

That is why we cannot move on.

Ephesians 5:11Have nothing to do with the fruitless deeds of darkness, but rather expose them.

2 Timothy 3:2-6People will be lovers of themselves, lovers of money, boastful, proud, abusive, disobedient to their parents, ungrateful, unholy, without love, unforgiving, slanderous, without self-control, brutal, not lovers of the good, treacherous, rash, conceited, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God— having a form of godliness but denying its power. Have nothing to do with them.

Matthew 7:15"Beware of the false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly are ravenous wolves.

2 Thessalonians 3:6Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you keep away from every brother who leads an unruly life and not according to the tradition which you received from us.

I can handle disagreement and misunderstanding, but what happens in the END and DESTINATION, is no what happens in ROAD and JOURNEY. That is the problem, they cannot see the forest from the trees, or tree from the forest.

Let me make use of this easy and familiar similitude to illustrate the point in hand--Suppose God requires a family of children, to obey their father and not to resist him; and enforces his command with this argument; that the superintendence and care and authority of a just and kind parent, will contribute to the happiness of the whole family; so that they ought to obey him for their own sakes more than for his: Suppose this parent at length runs distracted, and attempts, in his mad fit, to cut all his children's throats: Now, in this case, is not the reason before assigned, why these children should obey their parent while he continued of a sound mind, namely, their common good, a reason equally conclusive for disobeying and resisting him, since he is become delirious, and attempts their ruin? It makes no alteration in the argument, whether this parent, properly speaking, loses his reason; or does, while he retains his understanding, that which is as fatal in its consequences, as any thing he could do, were he really deprived of it. This similitude needs no formal application.

The problem with this analogy written by this 1700's minister is it is counter to what both Christ and Paul wrote. We can clearly see that if the analogy of the father turned mad is equivalent to a bad government set up by God and that if that government wants to slit our throats just as the mad father would have then we still must not resist the authority set up by God! Christ did not and neither did Paul nor the many thousands if not hundreds of thousands of early christian martyrs.

Another problem with this analogy is that the superior authorities God raises over nations whether for their good or bad in not equal to a father of children that turns mad.

We need to stick to the facts and not to make believe scenarios of a 1700's preacher.

The facts are that all the superior authorities that are put in place over the nations are put there by God and should we fight against them then we are fighting against God's mandate.The facts are that Paul never said:"Render to all their dues, to whom tax, tax, to whom tribute, tribute, to whom fear, fear, to whom honor, honor," only if they are a righteous superior authority.

No authority back then was righteous that I know of. Therefore your 1700's minister is wrong.

Logged

Just because God says He will save all mankinddoes not necessarily mean He won't.

3Rulers are a threat to evil people, not to good people. There is no need to be afraid of the authorities. Just do right, and they will praise you for it. 4After all, they are God's servants, and it is their duty to help you.

Now, Molly, remember! If the Scriptures say to do something that involves using your will, then tough luck because you don't have one. You have to ignore those Scriptures and just focus on God's Sovereignty. Or, if it be God's will, someday, you'll be able to be a doer of the Word and not a hearer only. But in the meantime, repentance isn't repentance without a bolt of lightning.

I'm sick of it and really wondering what I'm doing around here.

Martin, it does not help your case to demonize those you do not agree with.First of all I have always maintained that we have wills. The Bible says so. We have the "will of the flesh" (Eph.2:3) and that flesh is at enmity to God (Romans 8:7).

No one can be begotten by their own will because their will is at enmity to God. They can only be begotten by God's will:

Joh 1:13 who were begotten, not of bloods, neither of the will of the flesh, neither of the will of a man, but of [the will of] God."

So please tell me, rather than demonizing me, how a person can self determine a relationship with God? Tell me how any man on earth can of their own will please God. Tell me how man's will is free to please God prior to God changing that person.

Let's look at the law of Moses, Martin. And please, let us look at this whole matter without getting upset. Let's let cool heads prevail here.

God told Israel that if they will do the law that He will bless them. If they don't do the law they will receive all the curses of the law. The people proudly as one voice said: All the law we will do!Did they have a will that was free to do the law? It sure looked that way. After all God all through the Old Testament sent His prophets to them saying over and over again that you have failed to do My laws! You must do the laws! Do them! or else!

Yet we find in Romans that actually, no matter how strong their will was it was incapable of doing the law:Rom 8:7 because the disposition of the flesh is enmity to God, for it is not subject to the law of God, for neither is it able."Rom 8:8 Now those who are in flesh are not able to please God.

God knew all about the flesh because He created it. He also knew all about the law and knew before He gave the law that they would not be able to keep it.

Yet for all intents and purposes it appeared that by God commanding them to do it that they, of their wills, could do it.

So why did God set them up to failure? The law was given to escort them to Christ (Gal.3:24)And the law was given so that "Rom 5:20 Yet law came in by the way, that the offense should be increasing."

So we see, friend, that even though it appeared that God told them to do something that they thought they could do (else why would God tell them to do it?) that they could not.

So we see that there is no freedom of the will to please God for it is at enmity to God.There is no will in man to be begotten of God. It must come from God's will.There is no will that is free to do the laws of God.

Yet God soverengnly gave the law, created the flesh, created the will of the flesh and did not sin in doing so.

Do you see anything wrong with this scenario?

Tony

« Last Edit: November 20, 2008, 06:19:49 PM by Tony N »

Logged

Just because God says He will save all mankinddoes not necessarily mean He won't.

free will is the same as self will to me and there is the self righteous and the righteousness of God [ Jesus Christ ]

and to look the best a self righteous man can offer is anger and cruelty and violence , thats not what Jesus Christ teaches us to be , there are better things for you ,, 2Cr 3:9 For if the ministration of condemnation [be] glory, much more does the ministration of righteousness exceed in glory. Gen 49

the last or end days of the tribesof Israel

5"Simeon and Levi are brothers; Their swords are implements of cruel / violence. 6"Let my soul not enter into their council; Let not my glory be united with their assembly;Because in their anger they slew men, And in their self-will they lamed oxen. 7"Cursed be their anger, for it is fierce; And their wrath, for it is cruel. will disperse them in Jacob, And scatter them in Israel. [/b] Some of these still are not gathered in CHRIST BODY !

free will is the same as self will to me and there is the self righteous and the righteousness of God [ Jesus Christ ]

and to look the best a self righteous man can offer is anger and cruelty and violence , thats not what Jesus Christ teaches us to be , there are better things for you ,, 2Cr 3:9 For if the ministration of condemnation [be] glory, much more does the ministration of righteousness exceed in glory. Gen 49

the last or end days of the tribesof Israel

5"Simeon and Levi are brothers; Their swords are implements of cruel / violence. 6"Let my soul not enter into their council; Let not my glory be united with their assembly;Because in their anger they slew men, And in their self-will they lamed oxen. 7"Cursed be their anger, for it is fierce; And their wrath, for it is cruel. will disperse them in Jacob, And scatter them in Israel. [/b] Some of these still are not gathered in CHRIST BODY !

You can have a will and submit to God's will. Not my will be done, but His. Free-will has a choice between self or God.

Upfront I'm not attacking either the free or non free will camps. Or anything in between.I'm simply confused. Very confused.

If I have 0% free will then there isn't any need for me to even try to follow Jesus.If God deceides I will follow Baal there is nothing I can do about that.100% free will is much clearer for me.With that 100% I'm meaning within sensible parameters. I can want to jump 100meters but that won't happen.So with this free will I can decide I want to learn to know Jesus. That's why I'm on this forum.I have a fair impression of what all/most of you believe. But that's it. I know the words but not the feeling.When I asked about that I was replied with something like: God chooses who He draws to Himself.That suddenly means I have 0% free will.So when you are drawn you can't resist the force => 0%When you are no drawn you can't find/enter God because you are blocked. So the will has no effect => 0%

Ok I can my free will to choose the color shirt I wear and what type of car I buy. And zillions of other things.But my guess is that the free will in the Bible, being a religious book, is about the will to find the Maker.So basicly IMHO both lead to the same result no free will.Again the above is more like a question than a statement. But I admit my thoughts are leaning toward it.

« Last Edit: November 20, 2008, 08:07:51 PM by WhiteWings »

Logged

1 Timothy 2:3-4 ...God our Savior; Who will have all men to be saved...John 12:47 And if any man hear my words, and believe not, I judge him not: for I came not to judge the world, but to save the world.Romans 4:5 But to the one who does not work, but believes in the one who declares the ungodly righteous ...

You can have a will and submit to God's will. Not my will be done, but His. Free-will has a choice between self or God.

Dear SOtW, I don't know of anyone personally that would disagree with your statement: "You can have a will and submit to God's will."

If you have a will, then it is free to make choices, something which two people in this thread deny we can do.

Quote

The issue is this: All mankind have a will which is the "will of the flesh" which flesh is at enmity to God, therefore their will is at enmity to God.

Where are you getting this conclusion?

The will of man is not the will of the flesh. Paul makes it clear in Romans 7, the realization between the will of the flesh versus the will of God, is the will of man. It is the will of devil which is the will of the flesh, Satan, who is the adversary....that which is at enmity to God. If any man follows the will of devil, he too has made himself enemy to God as a result. Yet, at the End of the ages, Jesus came once and for all and reconciled man to God. This has been done, ALREADY. It is not some future event. The choice now, is how soon are you going to submit.

Will of God <----Man's Will---> Devil's will

Man has a choice, the wages of sin is death, not life. Therefore, if he chooses wrongly, he will be destroyed and die; if he chooses correctly, he is blessed and will never taste or see or experience death. Jesus made it clear, not everyone will taste, see or experience death because they submit themselves to the correct Master.

Now, what happens to the dead who chose wrongly? They are raised last, and brought into the kingdom in shame but in the kingdom none the less.

Quote

That being the case, at what point in a person's life can one who obviously has a will, submit to God's will? Can they do it of their own will?

The two are not same and therefore it is a wrong to combine the two. The case being is that God has ALREADY from the beginning of TIME made Himself known plainly to mankind, none are with excuse. The case being is that God has ALREADY sent His Son and reconciled all mankind to Himself, none are with excuse. The case being that the Spirit of God has been poured out on all mankind, even on His servants, none are with excuse.Therefore, man can submit His will to God at ANY TIME, because He is already known plainly to them, because We are already reconciled to Him, because His Spirit dwells among all mankind.

To say, can they do it of their own will, is a FALLACY because bundled in that presumption is your idea of what a will is. Yes, they can do it under their own will, because God it is GOD'S WILL that enabled them to ALREADY from the BEGINNING OF TIME.

It has already been done, therefore none are with excuse concerning their sin. None.

Well, I am sorry if I intruded on everyone's free will with my belief in the sovernity of God. Craig seems to want to get rid of those who believe in the sovernity of God. I guess I should just stay off of this forum since half of the time I can't get on it anyway. I certainly don't want to cause any friction with any of my beliefs. I respect those who don't agree with me and I have learned a lot from you all. From now on I will just read.

By the way Tony I completely agree with what you have said about free will and our will.

One thing I would like to ask everyone that believes in free will, or a will at all. WHERE DID YOU GET IT? HOW DID YOU ACQUIRE THIS WILL?

Craig seems to want to get rid of those who believe in the sovernity of God.

You are wrong. What it seems, is not what it is. I believe 100% in the Sovereignty of God.

1 Peter 2:15-16For it is God's will that by doing good you should silence the ignorant talk of foolish men. Live as free men, but do not use your freedom as a cover-up for evil; live as servants of God.

Who I want to get rid of those who say they have no accountability or responsibility in their life concerning the Will of God concerning them, these are sociopaths who care for nothing but themselves.

Quote

One thing I would like to ask everyone that believes in free will, or a will at all. WHERE DID YOU GET IT? HOW DID YOU ACQUIRE THIS WILL?

How one acquired Free Will, does not take away from Free Will. Therefore, your question is irrelevant, to freedom of will.

Where did we get it? God gave it to us, that is how we are created. How did we acquire this will? God gave it to us, that is how you acquired this will.

So now that God gave you this will, and gave you everything including making Himself known plainly, sending His Son and reconciled all mankind, and pouring His Spirit on all mankind, what are you going to do?

Romans 6:13-15Do not offer the parts of your body to sin, as instruments of wickedness, but rather offer yourselves to God, as those who have been brought from death to life; and offer the parts of your body to him as instruments of righteousness. For sin shall not be your master, because you are not under law, but under grace.

God gave it to you, that is how you aquired it. It was God's Will, that you have a choice in this life we live.

2 Peter 2:20-21If they have escaped the corruption of the world by knowing our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ and are again entangled in it and overcome, they are worse off at the end than they were at the beginning. It would have been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than to have known it and then to turn their backs on the sacred command that was passed on to them.

Zeek

Craig seems to want to get rid of those who believe in the sovernity of God.

You are wrong. I believe 100% in the Sovereignty of God.

1 Peter 2:15-16For it is God's will that by doing good you should silence the ignorant talk of foolish men. Live as free men, but do not use your freedom as a cover-up for evil; live as servants of God.

Who I want to get rid of those who say they have no accountability or responsibility in their life concerning the Will of God concerning them, these are sociopaths who care for nothing but themselves.

Quote

One thing I would like to ask everyone that believes in free will, or a will at all. WHERE DID YOU GET IT? HOW DID YOU ACQUIRE THIS WILL?

How one acquired Free Will, does not take away from Free Will. Therefore, your question is irrelevant, to freedom of will.

Where did we get it? God gave it to us, that is how we are created. How did did we acquire this will? God gave it to us, that is how you acquired this will.

So now that God gave you this will, and gave you everything including making Himself known plainly, sending His Son and reconciled all mankind, and pouring His Spirit on all mankind, what are you going to do?

Romans 6:13-15Do not offer the parts of your body to sin, as instruments of wickedness, but rather offer yourselves to God, as those who have been brought from death to life; and offer the parts of your body to him as instruments of righteousness. For sin shall not be your master, because you are not under law, but under grace.

God gave it to you, that is how you aquired it. It was God's Will, that you have a choice in this life we live.

2 Peter 2:20-21If they have escaped the corruption of the world by knowing our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ and are again entangled in it and overcome, they are worse off at the end than they were at the beginning. It would have been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than to have known it and then to turn their backs on the sacred command that was passed on to them.

Rom 1:18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness,

Rom 1:19 because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them.

Rom 1:20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse.

Rom 1:21 For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened.

Rom 1:22 Professing to be wise, they became fools,

Rom 1:23 and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed animals and crawling creatures.

Rom 1:24 Therefore God gave them over in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, so that their bodies would be dishonored among them.

Rom 1:25 For they exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.

Rom 1:26 For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural,

Rom 1:27 and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error.

Rom 1:28 And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper,